The ACC had originally targeted OREGON, WASHINGTON, Stanford and Cal
This is an old news but it seems like many people are not aware of it.
Since the 2003 fiasco (out of which Virginia Tech was accepted), the ACC has operated in a very discreet manner with respect to expansion. In fact, most other conferences operate similarly (Yormark is an exception).
So, I'm not surprised that many people are unaware of the fact that the ACC actually wanted to add Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal. (Also, the idea of the ACC getting Oregon and Washington doesn't fit the media narrative. Most people wrote off the ACC as a dead man walking)
See what this ESPN article says:
"Behind the scenes, however, the ACC was already having conversations about trying to add Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington -- discussions that had been taking place for well over a year. In fact, Duke president Vincent Price (serving as ACC board chair) reached out to Washington president Ana Mari Cauce last year to gauge interest in a partnership. Cauce declined, according to a source with knowledge of the discussions."
Link:
Oregon and Washington?
61 Replies
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
trouble. The Arizona schools have a lot of ties in Texas that go well beyond athletics. ASU fans I have found are indifferent, but the Utah fans most definitely would fit into an academic club with Cal an Stanford. The ASU president really doesn't like being in the B12, and made derogatory comments about WVU.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
and I targeted Brook Shields as a gf, when I was in high school LOL
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
Truthahn
1y
I've always been assuming that the B10 took Oregon and Washington because they would have gone to the ACC otherwise. That would have hurt the B10 investment in the LA schools too much.
I assume something similar wrt UCLA, btw. They don't add much for football to the B10, but can you imagine if the SEC had taken UCLA, and ASU? That would have ruined the B10 investment in USC.
** Edited by Truthahn at 4/22/2025, 11:11:28 AM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
How is the "investment" hurt if Oregon and Washington are in the ACC?
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
If Oregon was in the ACC last year, how do you think the B10 fans would feel about USC and UCLA when the playoff field was announced? Oregon was ranked #1.
If the ACC had somehow gotten Clemson, Oregon and Miami* into the playoffs and the B10 also had only 3 teams in, B10 fans would be immediately complaining about how incompetent their conference leadership was to leave them on the table.
*SMU would not be in the ACC in this scenario, and would not have been ranked in the top 12, so Miami would probably have gotten in instead.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
If Oregon were in the ACC and fans thought there had been an opportunity to have them in the B1G, then obviously they're annoyed, but I don't see how USC and UCLA loop in there.
Were their fans like "oooh, I love USC and UCLA now!" after Oregon got in at #1?
The Clemson, Oregon, Miami scenario...ok...sure, they'd complain. About nothing to do with USC and UCLA.
Even if you're spot-on, it's fan whining. Whatever happens, fans are going to whine. That's not really impacting an investment.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
So I don't think that had much to do with it.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
It is interesting that neither P2 has touched the Rockies and Southwest.
Or at least not yet.
You wondered what would have happened if the SEC had taken UCLA and ASU. Yeah, that would have been interesting. I just think eventually the P2 will come for ASU, Colorado and a maybe a few others. Sure, they aren't ND or Texas or USC, and they arr in the smallest populated time zone. But there is still money to be made there. Especially if you think about big name East Coast schools playing in later time zones. I am thinking more SEC here since the B1G is already out West now. But I wouldn't put it past the B1G to expand to these untapped regions as well.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
was for Oregon and Washington to say they are going to do it when an invitation may be on the way. They took a reduced share because upside is through the roof for both. There would have been no upside to joining the ACC or even thinking they could use that as leverage. They'd have been better off trying to salvage the Pac 12.
** Edited by reestuart at 4/22/2025, 1:54:05 PM
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2
2hhoop3
1y
back then were pretty logical even if the timing got screwed up with A&M throwing their hissy fit. UT/OU made the Big 12 a convenient pawn for both ESPN and FOX to give the PAC its comeuppance after Larry Scott grossly mismanaged the situation and the PAC 12 Prezs and ADs behaved like Scott's lapdog and abdicated their conference leadership responsibilities. If the PAC 12 was not surviving Oregon and UW were going to the B1G and the only question was price and timing.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/22/2025, 2:50:25 PM
(In response to this post by reestuart)
Do you remember Kevin Warren’s epic grandstanding speech about equity, then
in the same breath, destroying entire athletic departments including his own father’s Arizona State with relegation to the BigXII and lowballing Oregon and Washington with a half share?
Anyway, I do 😭
Someone needs to bring these crooks to heel.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
TerryD
1y
ND's excess value would have funded full shares for Oregon/Washington....
That was Warren's big plan. The Big Ten and USC pressured ND all summer of 2022.
Only one problem.. No sale
Plan B was half shares to Oregon/Washington.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
The latest is that USC's schedule will become so tough in the B1G that they
will bag out of the ND series. Especially if the SEC and B1G do a scheduling agreement.
No real SC fan wants that series to end. Plus, the purpose in part of an expanded playoff is so teams can schedule tough (i.e., games people want to see), and be rewarded by the selection committee.
Also, Flugs and the realignment heads are saying that when UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami bolt the ACC, that ND's schedule will suffer and they will have no choice but to join the B1G.
Curious to get your thoughts on these theories @TerryD
What would ND do if the top 5 brands left the ACC for the P2?
BTW, to your point, I remember Flugaur predicting ND would be in the Big Ten by the Fall of '22 after the USC invite. So, I'm sure that's what his Big Ten contacts were feeding him. He took the L on that one, that's for sure.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 4/23/2025, 12:10:40 AM
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
1y
Why should anyone listen to anything he says about ND ?
He has no ND sources, only Big Ten ones.
My take is that "scheduling difficulties" is the last refuge of those hoping SOMETHING will force ND football into a conference.
I mean, they were wrong about about the BCS, the Big East breakup, the playoffs, the expanded playoffs, the NBC deal renewal, etc........
So, I should believe them THIS time ? Lol.
ND has done a lot of work in the last few years to preserve/enhance independence. It is just not going to quake if fear over this latest "must force them into" fearmongering attempt by the Big Ten.
ND absolutely loves its current setup. It is taking more of an ACC leadership role and will work to fashion the ACC into a league that it likes to continue to affiliate with.
Its not going to surrender now and join the Big Ten.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
It's like the Coyote and the Roadrunner.
The Big Ten is always chasing, and Notre Dame is always getting away (Beep-beep).
But in Looney Tunes, the Coyote was more endearing than the Big Ten.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
1y
The Big Ten missed its chance.
Too late now.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
1y
of independence is measurably strengthened now compared to previous times. Their on field performance has picked up. The NIL and portal make their roster management more flexible, the expanded playoff further improves their access and prevents them being strong armed to a conference and the TV contract, including some B1G dates, makes more money and strengthens their playoff resume, if they perform. Barring unforeseen circumstances, new rule changes, unexpectedly losing Freeman or a complete P2 breakaway, ND's position of independence is stronger than it has been in quite a while.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
1y
the train has sailed, so to speak
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
TerryD
1y
ND was never going to join any football conference.
(In response to this post by mancunian)
1y
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2
2hhoop3
1y
real and practical effects of signing up for the Alliance and what do you see as turning out differently had he not done that?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
sticks. Case in point you called correctly!!
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
Realignment and expansion are actually fairly simple on paper if you only look at the athletics side, and especially if you only look at it for football.
But the decisions made for the alliance, for expansion winners/losers, and for contacts show that the academic side is influencing things more than many of us would like. Academic alignment and athletic alignment will never match up for the ACC.
The BIG managed it with high academics. The SEC managed it with lower academics (my view of their rankings). And the B12 I don’t really know enough about but they seem somewhat similar levels for both. But the ACC has clear differences in athletic priorities between schools (hence the lawsuits).
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
The alliance not letting the BigXII be part of it was beyond petty.
It shows that the Alliance "leaders: thought academic elitism would still win the day and the call the shots in college football and realignment. A false sense of security. They were spectacularly wrong.
I loved the Pac-12 and didn't want to see it go. But this move by the ACC, B1G and Pac-12 was just plain hubris.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
it had anything to do with academic elitism and everything to do with where the conferences at that time were perceived to be relative to realignment. The Big 12 was severely wounded with the loss of UT and OU. I suspect even then that both ESPN/SEC and FOX/B1G viewed the Big 12 as a useful pawn in their goals to further weaken and/or destroy both the PAC12 and ACC. The hubris was largely on the part of the PAC12. The B1G saw it as business and Phillips did not(at least I hope he didn't) understand what the ACC was actually being used for. The PAC 12, and maybe the ACC to a slightly lesser extent, saw themselves as hunters and never realized they were actually the eventual prey. Yormark, on the other hand, had an accurate read of his conference's position and parlayed it into a much stronger hand than he originally possessed.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
T
Truthahn
1y
Everyone was predicting horrible TV deals for them, G5 status, etc. They were out of the Alliance because the Alliance was supposed to be a counter to the SEC + Texas & OU. The B12 was consider too broken to help with that.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
The Alliance gave a false sense of security to the Pac-12 and the ACC. If they had been aware of the Big Ten's ambition to become a national conference, they (particularly the Pac-12) would have taken a much more aggressive approach toward the Big 12.
If the Pac-12 had poached a few Big 12 schools in 2021, the Big 12 might have been killed off, and the Pac-12 could have survived as a mid-tier conference. Now, it has become a G conference.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
T
Truthahn
1y
IIRC, we were supposed to begin scheduling each other, and I never saw any of that happening, even after months and months.
Also, USC declared arrogantly, that their ND games counted as ACC games, so no dice on anyone else from the ACC scheduling them.
Red flags that the ACC and PAC should have acted on. They both should have announced that they were considering bringing in B12 teams (from the eight leftovers) as soon as Texas and OK announced their B12 exit. We both should have been looking hard at Texas B12 teams at least.
** Edited by Truthahn at 4/25/2025, 2:19:09 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
newness, naivete, whatever of Kliavkoff and Phillips against them but, practically speaking that had little or no effect on the ACC and where they are now or what they did aside from the fact that if the Big 12 imploded they likely replace Stanford and Cal with Big 12 leftovers. No idea if SMU could have convinced the PAC 12 to take the deal the ACC took. The PAC12 surviving complicates the B1G expansion in a number of ways. At the end of the day the effects on the ACC were likely negligible and Phillips, unlike Kliavkoff, had little at risk. Kliavkoff got taken to the cleaners first by his own members(USC chief among them) and then Yormark happily stepped in to clean up the mess.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/22/2025, 3:11:10 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
If the Pac-12 had survived as a power or mid-level conference, the ACC wouldn't have needed to take Stanford, Cal, and SMU.
Instead, the B12 would have been dead and the ACC might have taken TCU, Cincinnati, and/or Houston.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
possible substitution but, not sure TCU, Cincy, Houston or even WVU or Florida schools are an upgrade monetarily from the Cal, Stanford, SMU deal. Moreover, if the PAC stayed in tact they would have been a far more formidable collection of schools than the current Big 12 and the power line up instead of 2 and 2 is likely 1-2-1 or 1-1-1-1 with the ACC a clear fourth in both scenarios.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/22/2025, 6:55:19 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
The new Pac 12 would be similar to the current B12 in terms of football strength and brand. But west coast oriented and better academics obviously. Probably a better partner for the ACC.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
Had the PAC remained together I doubt they lose 4 schools, maybe not even 2 and depending on REAL media negotiations the loss could have been limited to Colorado, if that can be considered a loss at all. Moreover, it gives the PAC 2 - 4 top tier properties which is 2 - 4 more than the Big 12 ended up with after realignment. You will have to explain in more detail what "probably a better partner for the ACC" really means in your thinking because I do not see the relevance of that statement.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Even if the Pac 12 had raid the B12 in 2021, USC and UCLA would still leave for the B10 in 2022. Same for Oregon and Washington. No school will decline an invitation from the B10.
Then the new P12 would be 8 Orginal Pac shools plus some B12 schools, which is not bad but not better than the ACC.
A better partner for the ACC refers to some early reports that the ACC tried to have a media alliance with the Pac.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
leave for a reduced share, particularly if they stood to be top dog in a viable PAC12 with a TV contract? You think the B1G approaches USC IF the PAC 12 is still viable? The were picking the carcass of an imploding conference.
I think you have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what allowed the B1G the opening in the first place. I also think it takes more than "some early reports" of exploring a media alliance to assert they would be a better partner.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
You are entitled to your opinion.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
according to reports. You are entitled to your opinion as well.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
had every opportunity to add Big12 schools, and the ACC could have had WVU (again). Academic snobbery and politics got in the way. It's also why when the PAC folded, that Stanford and Cal didn't call the B12 when ASU, AU, and Utah did.
We were the truck stop conference, and i would have been way OK with the ACC taking all of the PAC schools except Colorado and Arizona - who BTW, were the only two PAC schools except maybe OSU and WSU that actively and publicly WANTED to be in the B12.
If we could trade, I'd give you guys ASU and Utah for Louisville, and another team to be named later. Just not SMU.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
Hokester
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
I don't see the ACC leadership will ever invite Memphis.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
I see them ending up in the pack. There are too many good schools that are ahead of them. I'd rather get UConn, but that is from a fans perspective since I lived in New England for a number of years.
OSU and WSU would be better candidates for the B12 if they were needed, but I see VT, NCSU and Louisville as much better choices.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 4/22/2025, 8:00:54 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HouClone
1y
basketball and football. They have a big time whale with the Smith family (Fed Ex), and Beale street is a blast.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
So it doesn’t matter.
That same article says that an ACC administrator thinks Cal and Stanford are good brands. For football expansion, that view is absurd.
The acc was late as usual and ineffective and uncreative.
The reality that Oregon and Washington realized was that the acc was capped for value and internally unstable. And the value that exists today will vanish quickly when FSU and Clemson leave.
Did you know that the top G5 media revenue for 23/24 was UCF at $13 m? The second highest G5 team was Boise State at $5 m. If/when the ACC drops down to G5 quality and status, the media contract will drop like a rock to reflect that new reality. 2036 might be a decade away, but that could be a hard end to the acc status if the top teams are gone.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
UO and UW is not one of the missteps.
The ACC cannot compete with the Big Ten. No matter how hard the ACC tried to persuade Oregon and Washington, they would always choose the Big Ten over the ACC.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
1y
was they had a seat at the B1G table, even with an initially reduced share, and once that was known it is doubtful they gave ANYTHING else another thought.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
waited things out for a Big Ten invitation. That's not so much a knock on the ACC, but I'm sure they didn't see the ACC as any type of fit at all.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
uneven distribution model, and how that is calculated. The article touches on that as well. The past is behind us, and it is what it is. It's the future that matters now.
In a perfect objective uneven distribution system, it would be a beautiful bell curve. I don't think there are many that think that is how it will look.
I've struggled to look at the B12, and come up with some sort of fair uneven distribution model, but almost all of the schools have parity with attendance%, viewership, and brands. There are a few laggards in football, but those schools like KU and Houston are pretty strong in basketball.
In the ACC, you have 3 top football brands if you include Miami. So do only 3 teams benefit from an uneven distribution system? It's impossible to quantify without the details, but it's not difficult to speculate.
UNC will make sure that basketball plays a role for sure, as keeping the top 4 happy, (happy as in P2 type money), the bottom feeders will suffer. Given that there are already 3 that have pretty given up their media money, where do you think those dollars are going to come from?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
Truthahn
1y
Hopefully the ACC's uneven distribution model with force one onto each of the P2s. After that, maybe there will be less of an appetite by the P2 bottom feeders like Maryland and Miss State to bring in more big dogs to further erode their payouts.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
successful, then the blue bloods of the P2 will not be able to resist squeezing even more money for themselves.
The key will be to allow upward mobility, or downward trajectory based on measurable objective criteria. If, for instance, a Louisville, VT, or GT end up in the top 10 in football for more than one year, they will get the media slots (or should) based on their performance. With a 5 year average, it will take more than one season, but with sustained success, they should be able to move up the ladder. Future dates playing ND should be a part of that as well in my opinion.
If it ends up that a BC (all examples) all of a sudden goes on a tear, makes the playoffs 3 out of 5 years, and there is no movement in the conference payouts because of some subjective measure like "brand", then the ACC could be in trouble, and no conference would even think of voting it in.
I am convinced that this model could indeed change how media payouts are measured in the future for all conferences - but, and it's a big but, if it is only designed to make the top brands of the conference more money at the expense of the other members, you might have 14ish schools suing the ACC.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
Our future revenue splits should be continually re-evaluated and based upon each schools attractiveness to poachers and on each teams value to the ACC. I doubt there will be very much movement in those two categories, although there will be some, especially after the top two or three.
Also, I'd expect the most stable payout scheme to be a ton of money to the top two or three and a very steep drop off after that, almost like the P2 and P4 split but entirely within one conference. In the new environment, losing your top teams is way worse than not getting as much money as you would like.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)